Ex Parte Walker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 8, 2012

09893112 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PHILIP M. WALKER and KEVIN L. COLBURN
____________________

Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG,
and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-6 and 12-16 (App. Br. 2). Claims 7-11 and 17-19 have been
canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a computer device and method for
granting a client access to a service provider’s resource; wherein, the
computer device includes a control and connectivity module that generate a
graphical user interface which enables a system administrator to assign the
resource to the client without knowledge of the underlying connectivity
method (Figs. 4-6; Abstract; and Spec. 12:5-13:19).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for providing a client on a remote client
network access to a service provider resource on a local service
provider network, the method comprising the following actions:

(a) providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that
enables an operator of the service provider to construct
virtual local area networks (VLANs) between clients on
remote client networks and service provider computers
on the service provider network using a process that is
the same regardless of configurations of the remote client
networks;

(b) receiving commands of the service provider
operator with the GUI that convey the identity of a
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

3
particular client and a particular service provider
computer to be accessed by the client;

(c) automatically determining a configuration of
the client’s network;

(d) automatically establishing a VLAN between
the client’s network and the service provider computer to
enable the client to remotely utilize the computing
capabilities of the service provider computer; and

(e) repeating actions (b) through (d) for multiple
different clients having different network configurations,
the process used by the service provider operator to
construct the VLAN using the GUI being the same
regardless of the different network configurations.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
McNally US 6,259,448 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Hsieh US 2002/0158900 Al Oct. 31, 2002
(filed Apr. 30, 2001)
Pugaczewski US 6,903,755 B1 Jun. 07, 2005
(filed Dec. 21, 1999)

Claims 1-4, 6, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pugaczewski in view of Hsieh.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pugaczewski in view of Hsieh and McNally.

Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

4
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Pugaczewski and Hsieh teaches or would
have suggested “service provider computers on the service provider network
using a process that is the same regardless of the configurations of the
remote client networks” and “multiple different clients having different
network configurations, the process used by the service provider operator to
construct the VLAN using the GUI being the same regardless of the different
network configurations” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Pugaczewski
1. Pugaczewski discloses a network management system for
configuring a network connection between a first service access point and
the second service access point over a network having subnets of
corresponding element types; wherein, the system includes an information
manager and a configuration manager (col. 2, ll. 3-11).
2. The information manager, including routing information for the
network, is operative to determine a route made up of links over the network
from the first point to the second point; wherein, a network-to-network link
connects a pair of adjacent subnets having elements of different types (col.
2, ll. 11-16).
3. The system includes a provision screen that directs the system
user to select the first and second service access points and a topology screen
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

5
that illustrates the route over the network between the first and second
access points (col. 4, ll. 1-9).
4. The system is not limited to any particular type of network
connection (col. 9, ll. 20-23).
Hsieh
5. Hsieh discloses a provisioning system 31 that provisions,
monitors, and manages virtual local area networks (VLANs); wherein the
VLANs are groups of devices on one or more different (physical) LANs that
are configured to communicate as if they were attached to the same physical
LAN segment (¶ [0053]).
6. Using a GUI, the user can add a new VLAN by actuating a
button 108 (¶ [0058]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6, and 12-16
Appellants contend that “the mere identification of ‘a generic set of
models’ [as disclosed in the Abstract of Pugaczewski] is not a disclosure of
using a GUI to construct VLANs (or other connections) between ‘multiple
different clients having different network configurations, the process used by
the service provider operator to construct the VLAN using the GUI being the
same regardless of the different network configurations’” (App. Br. 9).
Appellants assert that the “Examiner provides no explanation as to how
Pugaczewski’s mention of ‘a generic set of models’ equates to or is
suggestive of the process used by an operator to be the same regardless of
network configuration” (id.).
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

6
However, the Examiner finds that Pugaczewski “teaches using a
software process stored on a computer readable medium to perform a
method of connecting two subnets having elements of different types [and]
different types of network connections” (Ans. 7). The Examiner notes
further that “these subnets are made up of different types [of] network
connections” and that Pugaczewski “does not prevent [one] from using a
method or a GUI regardless of different client networks;” rather, it “suggests
that regardless of the different of elements in different subnets, the
connections between these subnets are still possible by utilizing a GUI and
the software process” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “a process” references,
includes, or represents, other than it must be the same regardless of the
network configuration. Thus, we give “providing a graphical user interface
(GUI) … using a process that is the same regardless of [the] configurations
of the remote client networks” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any
method for generating the GUI, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 1.
Pugaczewski discloses a network management system for configuring
a network connection between a first service access point and the second
service access point over a network (FF 1). The established network-to-
network link connects a pair of adjacent subnets having elements of different
types (FF 2); wherein, the link is not limited to a particular type of network
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

7
connection (FF 4). The system includes a GUI having a provision screen
and a topology screen (FF3). We find that the provision and topology
screens comprise the GUI enabling the operator to construct network-to-
network links between two computing devices regardless of network
connection. That is, we find that “providing a graphical user interface (GUI)
that enables an operator of the service provider to construct … networks
[connections] between clients on remote client networks and service
provider computers on the service provider network using a process that is
the same regardless of configurations of the remote client networks” (claim
1) reads on Pugaczewski’s network management system having a GUI that
includes the provision and topology screens.
In addition, Hsieh discloses a provisioning system (including a GUI)
that provisions, monitors, and manages VLANs (including groups of devices
on different physical LANs) (FF 5 and 6). We find that the system and
method disclosed comprises a GUI enabling the operator to establish a
network connection for a VLAN. That is, we find that “providing a
graphical user interface (GUI) that enables an operator of the service
provider to construct virtual local area networks (VLANs) between clients
on remote client networks and service provider computers on the service
provider network” reads on Hsieh’s provisioning system having a GUI.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Pugaczewski and Hsieh at least suggests providing “service provider
computers on the service provider network using a process that is the same
regardless of [the] configurations of the remote client networks” and
“multiple different clients having different network configurations, the
process used by the service provider operator to construct the VLAN using
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

8
the GUI being the same regardless of the different network configurations,”
as specifically required by claim 1 (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Pugaczewski’s a network management system (including the provision
and topology screens) for configuring a network connection (not limited to
one type of network connection) between a first and second service access
point over a network (including subnets having different types of elements)
with a provisioning system (including a GUI) that provisions, monitors, and
manages VLANs (including groups of devices on different physical LANs)
as disclosed in Hsieh, produces a service provider computer having a
process of generating a GUI (or the purpose of establishing a network
connection for a VLAN) that remains the same regardless of the different
network configurations which would be obvious (Ans. 5 and 7; FF 1-6).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Pugaczewski in view of Hsieh. Further, independent claim 12 and claims 2-
4, 6, and 13-16 (depending from claims 1 and 12), which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claim 5
Appellants argue that claim 5 is patentable over the cited prior art for
the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and that “McNally does
not remedy the deficiencies of … Pugaczewski and Hsieh” (App. Br. 10).
Appeal 2010-008327
Application 09/893,112

9
As noted supra, however, we do not find deficiencies with respect to
the combined teachings of Pugaczewski and Hsieh. Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pugaczewski in
view of Hsieh and McNally.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb